Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot express: the cascade that restores trashed parent WBS items, the authorization requirement, and the return value ('Returns the restored task').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, cascade side effect, permission gate, and return value. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive operation with rich annotations, this covers everything an agent needs: what it does, the side effect on parents, who may call it, and what comes back. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior when the id is not in the trash.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Id of the trashed task'. The description's word 'Trashed' reinforces that the id must reference a trashed item, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bring a task back from the Trash') plus the cascade rule for parent WBS items. The trash framing implicitly separates it from delete_task (move to trash) and purge_task (permanent removal), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is clear: undo a deletion by restoring a trashed task. It also states the required role (Administrator or ProjectManager), which is real usage guidance. It does not explicitly point at list_trash for finding the id or exclude purge_task as the alternative when the user wants permanent removal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.